What is the Family Court Jurisdiction of Dist Court Dwarka ?

Medical Value Travel

                                                     URGENT Reply pls. from Ld. members from Delhi

From time to time under FCA , Family Courts are formed. When Delhi was divided into 9 districts in 2008 two Family Courts were instituted one for North East District at Rohani District Courts complex and another for North West District at Dwarka District Courts Complex.

Que. 1:
 What is the Jurisdiction of Family Courts at Dwarka District Courts Complex now?

Que 2:
A minor child living at Dwarka district in Delhi was removed from Dwarka district and taken to South District by other party. Does Family Court at Dwarka District Courts, Delhi will have jurisdiction to hear a fresh filed guardianship suit?  [Since 2009 Family Court is functioning within Dwarka District Courts complex]

Que. 3:
Against backdrop of que. 2 can Tis Hazari Courts will now have jurisdiction to hear 2007 instituted guardianship suit when Family Courts has already been instituted since 2009 at Dwarka District Courts comlex after bifercation of all district courts in Delhi?

Kindly quote authority (I am aware of S. 7 (1) read with S. 8 FCA) / any Delhi HC Order on above last two questions please.



Dear Author,

  1. Jurisdiction of Family Courts at Dwarka District Courts Complex  is South-West.
  2. Yes, Dwarka Court has jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship petition.
  3. No, Tis Hazari has no jurisdiction for the same.

For further queries u can call me at 9871158578.


Medical Value Travel

Ms. Rakhi

Any citation from Delhi HC and or any authority you can quote when you say authoratively YES to all three questions ?

You may also quote Order of Rohani and or Dwarka trail court as Delhi HC not handled such TPC (intra district) till date after Family Court bifurcation mine is the  first such Writ :-)



Yes I've authority in this regard that is Nishi Rana vs. Vineet Rana passed by Hon'ble HC OF Delhi in the month of sep. 2009.

Total likes : 2 times


Nishi Rana Versus Vineet Rana




Date of Reserve: 31.7.2008

Date of Order: September 10, 2008

CM(M) No. 1517/2007

Nishi Rana ... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate


Vineet Rana ... Respondent

Through: Mr. K.C.Mittal, Mr. Sumit Babbar and

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, Advocates



The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9.10.2007 of learned

Guardianship Judge whereby he disposed of the preliminary issue regarding

his jurisdiction and held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the

petition filed by the husband.

2. A perusal of order passed by the learned Guardianship Judge shows that

the Guardianship Judge had not gone through the facts stated in the petition

of the husband properly and taken note of wrong facts. In para 10.1 of the

petition, the husband had stated that the petitioner was married with the

respondent on 12.12.1996 at Sonepat, whereas the Guardianship Judge noted

in his order that the marriage was solemnized in Delhi on 12.12.2996. In

para 18 of the petition the husband had stated that he left Delhi on 1.2.2006

and went to settle at Dehradun. The response filed by the wife shows that at

that time husband and wife along with children were living at Delhi and

husband left his entire family in Delhi and shifted to Dehradun. In Dehradun

parents of the husband were living. The wife and children later on joined

him at Dehradun. It is admitted by the petitioner that he took a house on rent

in Dehradun and started living with his wife and children in the rented

accommodation at Dehradun on 10.7.2006. Children were admitted in

school at Dehradun (para 20 of the petition). In para 22 of the petition, it was

stated that he was compelled to leave the rented house in Dehradun on

25.7.2006 and he left Dehradun and came to Delhi and started living in

Delhi, his wife and children at that time were in Dehradun.

3. From Dehradun his wife and children came to Sonepat where her parents

were living and thereafter she started residing at Sonepat along with

children. She filed a criminal complaint against the husband at Sonepat. She

filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Sonepat. An FIR was also

registered at Sonepat. Although these facts are undisputed but the learned

Guardianship Judge did not take note of any of these facts and in his order

he recorded that both the parties lastly lived together at their house at Sector

9, Rohini, Delhi. Obviously, the learned Guardianship Judge did not care to

read the petition of the husband carefully before passing the order.

Thereafter, he went on to decide the jurisdiction and observed that the

“ordinary place of residence” of the two children viz. Master Dhruv Rana

and Baby Dhirty Rana had to be considered as Delhi. Both the children had

crossed the age of 5 years and as such by virtue of Section 6(a) of Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, they were out of the purview of the

provision that they should be ordinarily living with the mother. Father was

the natural guardian and the children were constrained to live at Sonepat

with their mother since she had taken them with her. Otherwise, ordinarily

they were supposed to be residing with their father which was the

matrimonial house of the respondent and by observing thus, he dismissed the

application and decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of Delhi Court.

4. It is apparent that the learned Guardianship Judge not only culled out the

facts wrongly but also had not taken care to apply the law properly. In Ramji

Lal Yadav v. Dalip K. Yadav, 76(1998) DLT 526 this Court had observed

that the phrase “where the ward for the time being ordinarily resides” has to

be interpreted in term of the residence of a minor whose custody is sought.

The emphasis has to be on the minor”s ordinary place of residence and it

excludes the places to which the minor may be removed at about the time of

filing of application for enforcement of guardianship and custody of minor.

The phrase only means the factual residence and not deemed residence of

the minor. The residence of natural guardian or legal guardian is not the

consideration of the phrase “where the ward for the time being ordinarily

resides”. For deciding residence of the minor in such cases, the factum of

residence in the sense of length and circumstances; and intention of residing

permanently or for indefinite period at the place other than that of residence

of natural guardian or of the parties would become important. Since, no

animus can be attributed to the children as they are depending upon the

guardian with whom they live, the conduct and the residence of the parties

would become important.

5. The place of ordinary residence for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction of

a guardian”s court has to be the place of residence of the minor. The minors

may be living either with mother or with father or they may even be living

with their grandparents. Where the minors are living, going to schools and

taken care of, that is the place of ordinary residence of minors and that is the

Court which has jurisdiction over grant of guardianship of the minors.

Unless the circumstances show that minors though ordinarily residing within

the jurisdiction of the Court, but were deliberately removed a short while

ago from the place in order to defeat the jurisdiction, the expression “place

of ordinary residence” would mean place where minor lives and does not

mean the residence of natural guardian or the legal guardian. It is not, the

place of residence of natural guardian or the legal guardian that gives

jurisdiction to the Court under Section 9(1) of the Act. The legislature has

designedly used the words “where the minor ordinarily resides” and it is

only the place of residence of minor which gives jurisdiction to the Court. In

the present case, the minors were living admittedly at Sonepat since July-

August 2006. They were lastly living at Dehradun along with their parents,

when father left Dehradun and started living at Delhi, the wife had no choice

but to move to her parents” house at Sonepat along with the children and

since then the minors were living at Sonepat.

6. When the petition was filed, the minors had already been living at Sonepat

for a period of one year thus, only the Court at Sonepat would be the place

of ordinary residence and not Delhi. The Court at Delhi would have no

jurisdiction. The petition is allowed. The preliminary issue is decided in

favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The Guardianship Judge

is liable to return the petition to be presented before the Court of appropriate





above collected from internet.

thanks ms. for her guidence.


thanks ms. rakhi budhiraja for her guidence.




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Search Forum:


  LAWyersclubindia Menu